Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester. He apologises to the House for not being here. He had hoped to be here, but a long-standing commitment has prevented him from being so.

Of course, my noble friend Lord Black is absolutely right that pets can be extremely beneficial and are a great asset in many households. However, my noble friend Lord Howard is also right in saying that there needs to be a balance; there cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want, however badly or well that pet behaves.

Amendment 124A refers especially to cats. I was actually quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Black did not mention cats. He mentioned dogs—he gave them a good write-up—but he did not mention cats because he probably knew that I would make the point that cats are killers. They have many assets and I love them dearly, but let out of a house and loose, they are killers. They kill between 160 million and 270 million animals every year, a quarter of those being birds.

I wonder how many of your Lordships woke up early on Sunday morning and listened to nature’s greatest symphony, the dawn chorus. It was International Dawn Chorus Day. We like small birds—songbirds. They are hugely under threat from all sorts of areas, but they are also under threat from cats. There are certain measures that cat owners can take to make their pet less harmful to other species, but the Brits are not terribly good at doing that. In fact, in Germany they have found that some of the Germans are not terribly good at that, either; they have actually made an order in some parts of Germany that during the summer, you have to keep your cat indoors all the time.

Amendment 124A is very tightly drawn. It allows a landlord to say no to a tenant having a cat if the property is in an area designated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—I remember speaking quite a lot during the progress of that Bill through Parliament—or close to a designated area. In other words, what we are really talking about here are key nature sites: the SSSIs and national nature reserves. The amendment is also carefully worded, in that one is not allowed to have a cat if the property is within a mile of one of those sites. Why a mile? The reason is that the research undertaken by the University of Reading and the University of Exeter at the request of SongBird Survival has found that cats can roam up to roughly 1,400 metres, which is just about a mile. Through their research, they also found that urban cats behave differently from what they call “peri-urban” cats, which are much more likely to stray further and have a different attitude and natural instincts from cats in urban areas, because of the restrictions of such areas.

It is entirely reasonable to encourage landlords to say yes, but equally, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to say no in certain circumstances. Nature in this country needs not only protecting but encouraging. One of the small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat in an area that is very close to or part of an SSSI or a national nature reserve. That is the right step: protection of nature rather than the will of an individual.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 124 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Earl, I am at a loss to understand why potential tenants in social housing are not included in the Bill. I would have thought that those seeking social housing are likely to be unable to afford to buy their own home, in which case they would not have a problem with having a pet. Why does the Bill not enable such tenants in social housing to enjoy the rights afforded to tenants in private housing? I cannot see the distinction, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this question.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am afraid I have none of the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about cats with intimate knowledge. At this stage I should redeclare an interest that I declared in the early days of this Committee. For the last almost 30 years my wife and I, by accident, in fact, have been the landlords of five one-bedroom flats in the house next door.

While households normally have as their pet either a dog or a cat, there are some extraordinary households that have a string of other sorts of pet—for example, a snake, monkey or parrot. Looking at page 21 of the Bill, we find that a “pet” is described as “an animal”. On that basis, a talkative parrot or indeed a snake does not fall under these provisions. The assumption therefore is that the landlord is entitled to say no to snakes and, if he needs to—although one hopes it is hardly necessary—no to a talkative parrot. It is important to establish the reasonable grounds on which a landlord can refuse to permit a tenant to bring a pet into the property.

Amendments 120 to 123, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, are very helpful. If they are going to be pressed on Report, I suggest they be condensed into a single amendment.

My wife and I have always refused to permit tenants to have a pet such as a dog or a cat, because we have been concerned about the disturbance of other tenants—a dog barking, for example—and the damage a pet can create in the household.

With that background, it has been very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, to identify circumstances in which it is reasonable or unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet in the premises. That continues to be a very interesting debate. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is going to educate us further on cats, but may we go on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets.

Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill.

Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem.

To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.